College Housing

Students attending college have options regarding housing facilities. Many will live on-campus and have their housing fee added to their tuition bill. Others, however, will choose to live in apartments or housing facilities off-campus, paying rent to a landlord rather than their colleges or universities. Living off campus is often less expensive than residing on campus, and there are corporations who build elaborate student residences in order to compete for housing dollars. However, the studies below will show that students who live on campus tend to be more connected with the colleges they attend. As such, they persist at higher rates, have better grades, and have stronger social networks than do students who live off campus.

Keywords: Community College; Non-traditional Student; Off-campus Housing; On-campus Housing; Outsourcing; Residence Hall; Resident Assistant (RA); Retention; Theory of Integration; Traditional Student

Overview

One of the biggest transitions for traditional college students is leaving the comfort of their family home to move into a residence hall with a group of strangers; one, two, or three with whom they will share close proximity for several months. As most of those new students will find out, there are advantages and disadvantages to living on campus. For example, living on campus offers the advantage of being close to classes, services, and the dining hall. Many freshmen are not allowed to have vehicles on campus during their first year, however, so making a trip to a Superstore to stock up on supplies can be difficult. Also, students who live in residence halls have to abide by the rules of the hall and are supervised by a resident assistant (RA) and resident hall director at all times. In contrast, students who live off-campus are not supervised and can come and go as they please. This is convenient and independent living, but off-campus students have to get to campus for class and to meet with faculty members and other students, so transportation is often required. Also, off-campus students have to budget their money in order to pay rent and utilities and have to buy food and gas. On-campus students pay for everything except transportation simply by paying their tuition, usually a twice-yearly bill.

For colleges and universities, offering on-campus housing has benefits and drawbacks as well. Residential housing brings a financial resource to a school. However, on-campus housing also puts a great deal of responsibility on that school; students who get injured or behave irresponsibly are the ultimate responsibility of the college — regardless of their age — when they live on campus. Over the past twenty years, colleges have been able to out-source that responsibility by allowing large corporations to build housing complexes right on their campuses. This option removes liability from the college and keeps students close to college resources. In effect, colleges lease land to corporations that receive rent from students (so the corporations make a profit) while those same students are considered residential because they live on-campus. Some of these corporations actually compete with colleges and universities for student housing dollars. Rather than seeking land on a campus, they purchase property close by, construct housing complexes, and offer apartment-style living, which ultimately takes housing dollars away from the college.

In Plattsburgh, New York, United Group developed and built College Suites, a 390-bed complex for Plattsburgh State students in the fall of 2009. The facility held two and four-bedroom apartments and "a fitness center, cafe/student lounge, game room and laundry facilities. Other amenities included cable television, wireless Internet service and all utilities" (LoTemplio, 2009, 6) for a price tag of around $8,000 per year. A walk of less than two minutes took students from the new apartment building to campus, which offered residence hall housing for $3,000-$4,000 less than the rent at College Suites. The residence halls at Plattsburgh State, however, are not as self-contained as the Suites, and students with cars who live on campus rarely get to park right outside their back door like they do down the street at College Suites. The convenience of independent living is worth the extra cost for some students, and colleges and universities now must consider how to compete with private housing options.

Further Insights

Off-Campus Living

Student Impact

Realistically, the most important issue to consider about housing options is whether or not students are more academically successful in one situation or the other. It may be that students care more about the facility they live in than their success in college. According to Macintyre (2003), "students have become more demanding about the quality of their accommodation and are looking for self-contained single-room apartments and access to a range of additional facilities such as computer points, laundries and gymnasiums" (p. 110). A more recent study also found that students increasingly are preferring suite-style residence halls that have private rooms to traditional residence halls. (Sickler & Roskos, 2013). As a result of student demand, colleges have started to create apartment-like housing — similar to that offered by College s — for students to live on-campus as independently as possible. Another way to meet student demand for independence is for colleges to lease land to large corporations (like the one that owns College Suites) to construct apartment/housing complexes on campus property. In this situation, students pay rent to the company (or building manager) that owns the building, but they are still considered on-campus residents who are close to classes, dining halls, and support offices.

When living situations are looked at from an academic perspective, however, students choosing the off-campus option may be doing so at their academic peril. Housing that offers no supervision and no interaction with faculty or other campus administrators often results in students in academic difficulty. Both recent and historic research shows that students are more successful — academically and socially — when they live on-campus rather than off-campus (Macintyre, 2003, Potts & Schultz, 2008; Moeck, Hardy, Katsinas & Leech, 2007, p. 328). This success includes having higher grades and completing more credits per semester than students who do not live in residence halls (Macintyre, 2003, p. 111). Vincent Tinto, professor of education at Syracuse University, developed his Theory of Integration based on the idea that students who live on campus develop a connection with faculty, academic support administrators, student organizations, and campus employment opportunities which help them integrate into the campus community. This integration helps them persist in a way that off-campus students do not (Potts & Schultz, 2008).

Community Impact

Another consideration of student living is the effects that housing situations have on the community surrounding the campus. Many campuses are set up so that students can survive without having to leave during the semester. Laundry facilities, dining halls, and convenience stores tend to populate campuses that offer residential living. Still, most students need jobs or want to eat out or attend movies or clubs. Since not all college towns have public transportation, many students have their own vehicles (and maintain them) or pay for cabs to get where they want. As a result, communities thrive, and in some instances, rely on college students to stimulate the economy eight months out of the year.

According to Macintyre (2003), however, communities that house colleges and universities can experience economic disadvantages as well:

Firstly, the pressure of many students seeking accommodation [off-campus housing] has had the effect of driving up the property values of some communities to the point where some housing has been put beyond the reach of the local inhabitants. Secondly, as the universities have acted to relieve the pressure and have directly acquired property, the proportion of land excluded from residential taxes has increased and the local authorities have ultimately been left with less money to support the local community (p. 112).

Thus, a catch-22 exists: businesses need the financial stimulus of college student spending, yet the increase in property value makes the economic benefit difficult to appreciate.

In addition to this, communities suffer other negative consequences from the existence of colleges as well. Noise and destruction of property tend to be the most common. For example, residents in Plattsburgh "have for years complained about problems caused by drunken students who urinate on public property, scream during the middle of the night while stumbling home from downtown, destroy property and even enter residences, sometimes vomiting inside and passing out" (Bartlett, 2007, Law Changes). While these behaviors cannot be attributed to students who live on-campus or off-campus specifically, they do make tolerating college students as a whole difficult for community members. This is especially so when property values increase and that property is then damaged by temporary inhabitants who are not invested in the community as a whole.

Academic Honesty On & Off Campus

According to the Department of Education, almost all public universities offered some kind of distance learning opportunity by the year 2000 (Tabs, 2003, as cited in Kidwell & Kent, 2008, p. S4). Since learning at a distance has become so popular, so has the argument that students who interact only with their computers for class have more opportunity to cheat than do the students who sit in front of their instructors every day. Kidwell & Kent (2008) put this theory to the test by surveying over 450 students, half of whom were enrolled in degree programs offered at a distance. In anonymous surveys, students were asked to identify cheating offenses by how serious they deemed them, whether or not they had done any of them, and whether or not they would identify people they saw doing them (p. S7). Demographically, the off-campus students were older than their on-campus counterparts with average ages being 35.8 years old and 22.4 years old, respectively (Kidwell & Kent, 2008, p. S9).

The types of cheating that respondents identified as the most serious offenses were those that off-campus students reported not doing:

  • Turning in a paper purchased from a paper mill,
  • Using unpermitted test notes, and
  • Turning in work done by someone else (Kidwell & Kent, 2008, p. S8).

While off-campus students admitted to offenses they considered to be less serious, the on-campus students admitted to them at higher rates:

  • Collaborating on work that was supposed to be done individually,
  • Copying a few sentences without footnoting them, and
  • Fabricating a bibliography (Kidwell & Kent, 2008, p. S8).

Overall, the off-campus students reported that they cheated less when compared to the responses of the on-campus students in this study; "they also had harsher views of various cheating behaviours and were more likely to claim they would turn in known offenders" (p. S14). It is difficult to determine what the reasons were for these results. It's possible that older students have more at stake when they enroll in college and, therefore, want to do their best. It is also possible that traditional students simply don't view cheating as a big deal.

On-Campus Living

Increase in Community College Housing

Moeck, Hardy, Katsinas & Leech (2007) note that studies including four-year colleges and universities monopolize the research on student residential living experiences. The result is that little research exists about housing at community colleges even though in a 2001-2002 poll over 250 community college representatives stated that residential living was available on their campuses (p. 328). Moeck et al. sent surveys to the college presidents at those schools and received over 115 that explained why the community colleges saw the need for on-campus housing (p. 330). Most responses came from presidents of campuses in rural areas and identified "underscoring the tie to student services as a vehicle to promote college success" as an over-arching rationale for offering on-campus housing (p. 331). "By offering on-campus housing, community colleges supply an incentive to students who live out of the primary service area to attend their institution" (p. 333). Other reasons provided in the surveys were increasing student diversity and academic programming to students who would otherwise attend class and then leave campus as commuters (p. 331). According to Moeck, et al:

Traditional-aged single students desire to have a true college encounter involving social as well as academic experiences. By extending to the students an opportunity to live away from home while attending college, rural-serving colleges can recruit, retain, and offer an enhanced educational experience. By offering on-campus housing, rural-serving colleges can also improve racial and ethnic diversity by providing scholarships and opportunities to both minority and international students (2007, p. 333).

In addition, many community colleges offer athletic programs as a way to recruit students. In a study conducted in 2004, Castaneda noted that the number of student athletes at U.S. community colleges was "nearly 60,000" (cited in Moeck et al., 2007, p. 334). As recruits, those students are sought out by campus officials and offered incentives like scholarships and housing in exchange for full-time attendance in class and the chance to play intercollegiate athletics. Indeed, it would not make much sense for a student athlete to attend a college over 100 miles away from home if the opportunity to live there did not exist. On-campus housing at community colleges is also an incentive for students who are not athletes:

The shortage of nursing and allied health professionals, as well as the shortage of qualified faculty to educate and train students in these programs, is currently receiving a great deal of national publicity. In rural areas, however, the deficiencies are perceived to be many times more serious. The perception stems from the vast differences in income and job responsibilities between healthcare professionals in urban and suburban localities compared with those in especially remote rural regions (Reid, 2005). Since healthcare programs historically attract more female students, orienting housing to nursing and allied health students may offset the male-dominated athletic teams and, thus, promote gender equity (Moeck et al., 2007, pp. 334-335).

On-campus housing at community colleges offers students a variety of experiences that include academic, social, professional, and athletic opportunities. Without the option to reside at a respective college, students might opt out of higher education entirely, especially if commuting was not an option for them.

Mental Health Services

Part of attending college involves a transition that is often difficult for some students to handle. Whether a clinical mental health issue or homesickness, students who feel helpless and alone need someone to trust with whom they can discuss their feelings. Yorgason, Linville and Zitzman (2008) conducted a study to determine whether or not living on campus translated to students increased knowledge and use of mental health services. They surveyed over 250 students enrolled at a U.S. university, the majority of whom lived off-campus, to determine students' knowledge of the mental health services on campus and whether or not the students had used the services:

When asked whether their knowledge of mental health services was sufficient, 37% of respondents indicated that they were not given adequate information to enable them to contact the mental health services. One-third (30%) had never heard of the services. An additional 38% had heard of the services but knew nothing about them (Yorgason, Linville & Zitzman, 2008, p. 175).

Also, female respondents, students who experienced distress and students who lived on-campus were more likely to know about and/or have used the services then were male participants, students who reported no distress and students who lived off-campus (p. 176). It may be that students who choose to live on-campus do so because of the proximity to student services like mental health offices; however, students who live off-campus tend to have responsibilities that can lead to feelings of stress. Paying rent and utilities, finding transportation to campus, and the lack of available services like dining halls, laundry facilities, and academic support are just a few.

Viewpoints

Liability

Knowing that residential students are more successful can lead to a good-faith effort on the part of colleges and universities to create on-campus housing regardless of the cost. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (Van der Werf, 1999), however, colleges need to consider that cost and whom they are paying. For example, a private company who owns a building on campus and rents rooms with its own leasing contracts is liable for the safety of the students it houses. That means that if a student gets hurt on that property, the owner or building manager-who most likely does not reside on campus-is responsible for coming to the student's aid. Similarly, if a pipe bursts in the middle of winter or a faulty dryer mechanism starts a fire, municipal personnel not affiliated with the campus are responsible for responding to the problem (Van der Werf, 1999). Also, any college that allows privately-owned housing on its campus runs the risk of disciplinary issues that it cannot regulate. Students who pay rent to a corporation may not see the point in abiding by the rules set forth in residence hall agreements. With no in-house supervision, it is nearly impossible to regulate noise, alcohol and drug consumption, or to identify who is responsible for damages in common areas.

Outsourcing

In addition, many colleges may be seeing enrollment increases but not revenue increases large enough to build new residence halls. Some are coping by placing three students in rooms designed for two. (Clark, Jackson, Everhart & Torres, 2012). In that regard, outsourcing the availability of housing-while being able to keep students on campus-makes sense. However, not all building projects have reliable forms of capital, and while colleges are trying to cover themselves by having bonds issued for property on their campuses, they can still experience a financial loss. For example,

The Tallahassee Community College Foundation helped secure bonds for a privately developed, 184-unit townhouse complex near the campus in 1990. Two years later, the foundation was forced to take over management of the complex after the developer was indicted for fraudulent use of students' security deposits. The college itself was forced to buy almost half of the project to help the foundation stave off creditors (Van Der Werf, 1999, Bailing Out).

As more and more colleges turn to outsourcing, bonding agencies who credit them will hold the colleges accountable for the cost of the buildings whether or not they technically own them. According to the Chronicle, "if the bond-rating agency believes that an institution would bail out a developer in the event of problems … it will include the debt as an obligation of the university, even if the obligation is not legally binding" (Van Der Werf, 1999, Bailing Out). This decision is based on the probability that a college won't allow a new apartment complex — boasting the amenities students want (separate rooms, athletic facilities, wireless Internet) — to be left uncompleted on a campus indefinitely should a contractor go bankrupt during its development.

Finally, academic success is the goal of all colleges, and student housing should promote that success. As such, some colleges are saying no to outsourcing and taking on the bonding agencies themselves.

At Colorado College, the Board of Trustees elected to finance a new student-apartment complex by issuing bonds, even though it would cost more than $70,000 per bed, or $22.9-million for the 300-bed building. The college estimated that private developers could build a complex for about $30,000 per bed, based on projects on other campuses (Van Der Werf, 1999, Relying on).

While part of this decision was based on how long the complex would last depending on who was responsible for its development, a larger part was academic. Students study in their rooms, in the study lounges in their halls, even in the laundry rooms of the buildings in which they live; colleges should take the idea of construction — and its funding — as seriously and personally as possible. The housing project at Colorado College put their student resident number at 80% (Van Der Werf, 1999). That's 8 out of 10 students who are close to campus resources — faculty, academic support, organizations, and job opportunities. Such an investment may not be possible on all college campuses, but it shows how dedicated this one college is to the success of its student body.

Not all students have a choice where to live. Some universities require that students live on campus for the first year (Sickler & Roskos, 2013). Such policies have been the target of lawsuits that claim they infringe on students’ economic and civil rights (Rovinsky, 2013).

Terms & Concepts

Non-traditional Student: A student who is not attending college directly from high school and/or may attend part-time while working or raising a family.

Off-campus Housing: Any living situation that is not supervised by a college campus authority.

On-campus Housing: Generally residence halls in which more than one student lives in a room and shares facilities like a study lounge, kitchen, laundry, and/or bathrooms.

Outsourcing: Hiring an outside company to subcontract the building, development and/or management of on-campus housing facilities.

Resident Assistant (RA): A student employed by a college who lives in the residence hall and supervises a group of students who live there.

Retention: The concept that students persist in college from semester to semester, year to year or from their first year to graduation.

Suite: A newer type of residence hall that has single bedrooms and common space.

Theory of Integration: Created by Vincent Tinto to explain the successful persistence of students who are "connected" with the campus community.

Traditional Student: A student who attends college directly from high school and enrolls in a 4-year academic program.

Bibliography

Bartlett, S. (2007, July 25). Commission issues report on Center City concerns. Press Republican. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from Pressrepublican.com: http://pressrepublican.com/0100%5fnews/x155090462/ Commission-issues-report-on-Center-City-concerns/print

Clark, E. A., Jackson, S., Everhart, D., & Torres, V. (2012). Residential density: The effects of tripling college students. Journal of College Student Development, 53, 477-481. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=76292916&site=ehost-live

Kidwell, L. A. & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: A study of academic misconduct among university students on and off campus. Accounting Education, Supplement 1, 17, 3-16. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=34212291&site=ehost-live

LoTemplio, J. (2009, February 19). College housing project still dormant. Press Republican. Retrieved August 18, 2010 from Press Republican website: http://pressrepublican.com/0113%5fbusiness/x155041310/College-housing-project-still-dormant

Macintyre, C. (2003). New models of student housing and their impact on local communities. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 25, 109-118. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11622171&site=ehost-live

Moeck, P. G., Hardy, D. E., Katsinas, S. G. & Leech, J. M. (2007). On-campus housing at rural community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 31, 327-337. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24325032&site=ehost-live

Potts, G. & Schultz, B. (2008). The freshman seminar and academic success of at-risk students. College Students Journal, Part B, 42, 647-658. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32544901&site=ehost-live

Rovinsky, J. (2013). Monopoly--university edition: The case for student housing independence. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, , 45-65. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86721426&site=ehost-live

Sickler, S., & Roskos, B. (2013). Factors that play a role in first-year students' on-campus housing decisions. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 39/40(2/1), 10-31. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89746935&site=ehost-live

Student Housing NY. (2005-2010). CollegeSuites of Plattsburgh. Retrieved August 3, 2010 from College Suites website: http://www.mycollegesuites.com/plattsburgh/index.asp

Van Der Werf, M. (1999). Colleges turn to private companies to build and run student housing. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45, A37. Retrieved August 5, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1917150&site=ehost-live

Yorgason, J. B., Linville, D. & Zitzman, B. (2008). Mental health among college students: Do those who need services know about and use them? Journal of American College Health, 57, 173-182. Retrieved July 27, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=34453087&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Accessed August 27 2010, from Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing%5fby%5fdegrees.pdf

Antion, D. L. & Michael, W. B. (1983). Short term predictive validity of demographic, affective, personal, and cognitive variables in relation to two criterion measures of cheating behaviours, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 467-482.

Birks, T. (1972). Building the new universities. Newton Abbot, Cornwall, England: David & Charles.

Campus Suites: The Ultimate in Student Housing. (2010). Retrieved August 3, 2010 from Campus Suites website: http://www.campussuites.com/

Craglia, M., Haining, R & Wiles, P. (2000). A comparative evaluation of approaches to urban crime pattern analysis. Urban Studies, 37, 711-729.

Gose, B. (1999). The annual squeeze into hotels, homes, and those dreaded 'converted triples.' Chronicle of Higher Education, 56, A55-A56.

Hughes, J. (1995). The impact of the business expansion scheme on the supply of privately-rented housing. Journal of Property Finance, 6, 20-32.

Kenyon, E. (1997) Seasonal sub-communities: The impact of student households on residential communities. British Journal of Sociology, 48, 286-301.

Raby, R. L. (2007). Internationalizing the curriculum: On- and off-campus strategies. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007, 57-66. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25541659&site=ehost-live

Essay by Maureen McMahon, M.S.

Ms. McMahon has a Master's degree in Curriculum Development from the University at Albany and has worked in higher education for the past ten years. She is currently providing academic counseling for students in a small private institution in the Adirondacks. Ms. McMahon has taught developmental writing and English composition in the past and is currently teaching technical communication and first-year seminar in addition to her administrative position. She resides in upstate New York.